JB: If industry reps are talking about what they are doing with products
and what they've done with accessible content - allows them to be responsible
for it. Any chance going into round table format could become unfocused?

HB: How to do XML - issue brought up in previous event. No mention of
accessibility. Afraid same issue would come up.

AA: (IRC) bringing in people with disabilities is better at beginning if u
can manage - sets the scene (shows reality)

HBj: Authoring tools for Windows or what tools?

AC: Browser people too.

JB: Evaluation tools as well?

AC: May be too advanced.

SLH: Goals in Round Table?

AC: Raise awareness among users and vendors. Would be reps in Spain, but
would raise awareness from that way.

AA: (IRC) industry panel at end may be good - gives participants a chance
to quiz vendors with their newly found knowledge

AA: (IRC) looking like a good event

JB: Seems we are at a point where we feel good with ideas.

HBj: Would consider going.

JB: General Reactions and comments - go around.

DS: Thinking about round table and goals. Important to have clear
goals.

CS: Round table should have specific goal. Otherwise sounds good.

HB: Before people come to session - if having sites volunteered that they
try accessibility tools and become familiar with vocabulary.

DL: May need to shorten topics in order to give all enough time. Not sure
about audience so would not pick or choose at this time.

SLH: Audience - wont' know since it's an open event. We should define
agenda then write up PR to get audience we want. Who do you want?

CL: First day - 9-10 am block. Mangers interested in legal and
testimonies. Next fundamental concepts and style sheets.

JB: Before both focused on tech people - first less experienced second day
more experienced. This version would be more practical for managers and
policy people then content becomes more technical.

JB: Some people will come just for this.

SLH: Managers coming to conference might not want to come early for Monday
morning and then have nothing for Tuesday.

Minutes:

SLH: [reviewed recent changes to document.] Took out duplicate info about
ROI. Is it clearly stated at beginning so that doesn't need to be restated in
Cost section? Increased site use - broken into 2 sections (Audience Reach and
Effectiveness).

HB: Questions the word "Reach" with audience. Likes divisions.

JB: Changes in intro - and wording in other sections. Increases cost
efficiency - more generic than profitability?

BM: Non-profits - not supposed to make a profit. So agrees with JB on
change.

SP: Words are important - NPO will still want to control costs.
Profitability is important for Profit and NP orgs.

HBj: Would it turn them away to see profitability

SP: ROI - is basically profit - so would be ok to leave with cost
efficiencies and take out profitability.

CC: Cost and benfits section: The costs and benefits apply differently to
different organizations in different situations.

BM: Redundancy with first section paragraphs. Cost of benefits could be
another paragraph.

AA: (IRC) yes - we are saying they can make more money if they make their
sites accessible!!!

AA: (IRC) what about "can impact profitability OR return on
investment"?

JB: Needs other's to review - don't need to focus on details more on
ideas.

CC: For example, costs are often lower… Difference between redesigning and
fixing?

JB: Same section - complex concept - claiming it's less expensive to do
accessible site. Statements in this part of the intro are very complex and
subtle - making conclusions there we should be very clear. Will send comments
in email. 3rd sentence in 2nd paragraph. Comparisons and claims should be
clear and qualified.

JB: Financial benefits section. Increased audience and Effectiveness.

JB: List is very nested - any way to reduce conceptual layering?
Numbering?

AA: (IRC) section numbers can be useful - but i tend to agree with shawn
that the style should be sufficient

SLH: In intro have nested list that shows organization.

JB: Suggest moving conversation to list. Nesting needs to be addressed as
there is much confusion.

JB: Direct Cost Savings Section.

SLH: Maybe should have an Appendix to help explain claims?

JB: Unqualified statements - need to be careful of. Would like to add the
word "can" to statements. Direct Cost Savings - "See technical factors page
for more examples."

CS: Could be worded better.

AA: (IRC) i'm happy to provide qualifications for the direct cost-savings
claims - plenty of 3rd parties are making them

AA: (IRC) qualifiers - not just 'can' - what about "Decreases human
resource costs for maintaining the site by reducing site maintenance in the
longer term"

AA: (IRC) seems to point clearly to an associated page to me

SP: Building new sites with Accessibility might be less expensive. Take a
look at #7 comment from Oct. 27th email:

7. The following content also needs to be introduced into this section -
preferably after listing the above cost elements.
"Some of these costs might be incurred more frequently than others. An
organization might choose to outsource some or all of the processes which
will then require retaining consultants well versed in accessibility design
and testing or firms that provide such services. Another organization might
choose to build the capability inhouse by equipping itself with the
necessary tools, software and staff. The costs also depend on the approach
adopted for implementing Web accessibility. Some organizations prefer to
assign priorities to various types of Web content. One possible
classification of Web content is: - Content that is important from the
organization's perspective. For example, a business might like to make its
products and service offering pages accessible before working on pages that
contains content of interest to investors or job seekers. Another
organization might reverse the order. An organization running a passenger
bus / rail network might consider making its schedules accessible first.
- Web applications- secure and non-secure
- multi-media Web content that might need extra effort for providing text
alternative content / transcriptions / captions.
- static versus dynamic Web content
The level of accessibility sought to be attained may also influence the
process and therefore the costs. It is possible for instance, that the
efforts and time required for an organization to attain a mandated
accessibility level (if any), that is lower than the one recommended as the
most desirable by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, might be lower.
Just like itt is more economical and easier to plan and incorporate
accessibility into a physical structure like a new building than an
existing one, it is more easier on all counts to make a new Website
accessible than retrofitting an existing website for accessibility
features. In other words, it costs less to designed and develop a website
with accessibility in mind."

JB: Suggests conversation goes to list - very detailed and not clear how
much we need.

JB: Cost considerations ok?

BM: Good concerns being brought up - good section

JB: Would like to see more clearly in intro?

HB: Change over time not included - not important to say Human
Resources.